role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

December 12, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Dec-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 12 December 2002 Jeudi 12 décembre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE MANAGEMENT /

GESTIONS DES DÉCHETS

FIRST NATIONS MINING

AND FORESTRY REVENUES

WASTE MANAGEMENT /

GESTION DES DÉCHETS

FIRST NATIONS MINING

AND FORESTRY REVENUES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

SANTA'S VISIT

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CHRISTMAS EVENTS IN DURHAM

LONG-TERM CARE

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

CIVICS CLASSES

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

SUPPORT THE SHORTS

VISITOR

APOLOGY

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

VISITOR

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

REQUEST FOR OPINION

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL

STATUS OF BILL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LE MINISTÈRE DES SERVICES

CORRECTIONNELS

ONTARIO DRINKING WATER

SOURCE PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES SOURCES D'EAU POTABLE

DE L'ONTARIO

RECREATION RESERVE ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA RÉSERVE RÉCRÉATIVE

ONTARIO WORKERS'

MEMORIAL ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LE MONUMENT COMMÉMORATIF

DES TRAVAILLEURS DE L'ONTARIO

ROAD SAFETY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L'OFFICE DE LA TÉLÉCOMMUNICATION

ÉDUCATIVE DE L'ONTARIO /

ONTARIO EDUCATIONAL

COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002

TENANT PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(FAIRNESS IN RENT INCREASES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DES LOCATAIRES

(AUGMENTATIONS ÉQUITABLES

DES LOYERS)

SENIORS' PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

MARRIAGE AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE MARIAGE

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ROAD SAFETY /

SÉCURITÉ ROUTIÈRE

DEFERRED VOTES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DE PROTECTION

DES ANIMAUX DE L'ONTARIO

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL EDUCATION

PREMIER'S RECORD

HYDRO ONE

EDUCATION FUNDING

PREMIER'S SPENDING

GUN REGISTRY

NATURAL GAS RATES

HEALTH CARE

FAR NORTH FIRE MANAGEMENT

ONTARIO DISABILITY

SUPPORT PROGRAM

HOLIDAY MESSAGE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2002

SUPPLY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2002

Thursday 12 December 2002 Jeudi 12 décembre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

WASTE MANAGEMENT /

GESTIONS DES DÉCHETS

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): It's a pleasure for me to rise in the House this morning to move the following motion:

Let it be resolved that the province of Ontario must employ cost-effective modern technology which is presently available as a progressive process to manage and

dispose of waste. Furthermore, a more aggressive objective than the present goal of 50% be established to divert waste away from landfill sites must become the new criteria and goal.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Beaubien: It certainly is a pleasure this morning to rise on behalf of the constituents of Lambton-Kent-Middlesex to raise the issue of

landfill in our waste streams in the province of Ontario.

Why do I raise this particular issue? First of all, the Lambton part of my riding probably has more landfill sites per capita than anywhere else in the province

of Ontario. There's a reason for that. The soil conditions in that part of the county, certainly in Kent and part of Middlesex, is very conducive to having landfill sites.

However, having said that, I don't think anybody wishes to have a landfill site in their backyard. But we have to come to the reality that we do create an awful

lot of waste. We're certainly the leaders in the world, as a nation, when it comes to the creation of waste.

To simply landfill waste today is no longer acceptable. I say that because landfilling is archaic technology. Our forefathers used that method of disposing of

their waste. They were burning it and they were burying it, and we're still doing the same thing. One reason we're still doing that is probably because it's cost-effective. However, as a province,

as a nation, as responsible citizens, we have to look at what kind of legacy we're going to leave our children.

I don't want to make this an urban-rural problem, but there is no doubt that a lot of the waste is generated in urban areas and shipped to rural areas to be

landfilled. Let me say that many small rural communities, including First Nations, would be more than willing to accept the waste, but not to simply landfill it. I think we have to look at a better

recycling process, better composting and, like I said in the resolution, using modern technology.

If we go back a number of years, 10 or 15 years ago we initiated the blue box program in the province of Ontario. I think it's a fuzzy-peachy way of making

people aware that we should reduce our waste stream. But I don't know if you've had the opportunity lately to watch when you have one garbage truck coming down the road and then, coming in the

other direction, you have a recycling truck. It's somewhat irresponsible to have two large polluting vehicles coming down the street to pick up your waste. And many, many of the recyclables -- I've

seen it with my own eyes in the past six months -- simply go into the garbage portion of the recycling truck. I would imagine the reason that happens is because there may not be a market for the

cardboard or paper or glass or whatever it is.

Consequently, we have to look at how we are going to proceed in handling our waste. We can make this a political issue, but I see that the member from

Sarnia-Lambton yesterday finally realized that there is an Environmental Protection Act. If you're going to change anything in the way we deal with our waste stream, at times you may have to amend

the act or the regulations, whatever the case may be. There is a process, for instance: "Guide for Applying for Approval of Waste Disposal Sites." It's a lengthy process.

One of my small communities right now, Watford, is undergoing an application where one of the local waste companies is applying to expand the waste site. I had

the opportunity to attend an open house a couple of weeks ago; sometimes I'm concerned, because I think there were 12 to 14 local residents at the meeting. It was not very well attended.

When I talk about waste diversion, I think all levels of government have a responsibility to play: federal, provincial, municipal and certainly the taxpayers. I

think we have to start with the packaging industry. We are somewhat over-exuberant sometimes with our packaging requirements, and consequently that creates waste.

I should also say for the record that no municipality should be forced to accept waste. For a landfill site to be expanded or created, the municipality should be

a willing host.

I do have some concerns. One of the concerns I have -- we talk about pollution. Pollution is a concern, I would say, to all Ontarians. It's a motherhood issue.

But when we have something like 400 garbage trucks leaving the Toronto area on a daily basis to go to Michigan, to go to New York, to go to Lambton, I wonder where the leadership is at the local

municipality, namely, the city of Toronto. I had the opportunity to negotiate with them with regard to the sale of a local, municipally owned landfill site 12 years ago, and I dare say that Toronto

is not any further along with regard to dealing with their garbage than they were 12 years ago.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Not true.

Mr Beaubien: If it's not true, why are you shipping 400 trucks a day outside the community?

I realize that the member from Sarnia-Lambton is all for closing down the Sarnia-Lambton generating station and putting 400 people out of work. But when we look

at the pollution created by the Sarnia-Lambton generating station and the one in Nanticoke, they create 8% of the nitrogen oxide pollution in the province. Yet vehicles that use the 401 corridor

create 32% of the nitrogen oxide pollution -- four times as much.

With regard to truck traffic, in the town of Petrolia at this point in time we are receiving 90 garbage trucks a day. They're using local roads and disrupting

the peaceful residential areas in some small communities. That is a concern, and I know we have to deal with this.

Like I said, there is no problem with dealing with garbage, because garbage is a by-product of our society, but we have to deal with it responsibly. If we were

more conscientious with regard to composting, recycling and whatever else, maybe methane digesters, and would bring it to rural Ontario, to a community that is a willing host, we can deal with it

in a responsible manner using modern technology and creating jobs in rural Ontario, creating by-products that can be used, as opposed to landfilling. Landfilling is an antiquated way of dealing

with our waste stream.

I say we have to be more aggressive than having a goal of 50%. I see that the Liberals, in their recent Magna Carta, say we should divert 60% of waste from

landfills. I have municipalities in my riding, small municipalities, that are diverting 80% of their waste stream already, so 50% is not adequate and 60% is certainly not adequate when most of the

landfilling activity is generated from Toronto and shipped to rural Ontario, and its population is going to go from 2.5 million people to 3.5 million or whatever population maximum we're going to

have. That's going to create more traffic. That's going to create more garbage.

That's why it is imperative that as opposed to having goals of 50% and 60% -- there's technology in Europe, in Japan, that deals with the waste stream with a

maximum of 95% to 98%. There's basically nothing in landfill. It's about time that in Ontario, in Canada, in Toronto, we start dealing with our waste stream in a responsible, cost-effective manner,

using modern technology, so we can deal with some of the pollution we are creating.

When we're talking about the Kyoto accord, I think it would be a good plan to make sure that whatever program we embark on with recycling and composting and

waste management, it is compatible with the Kyoto accord that is going to become law in the very near future.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): I find it interesting that the resolution brought forward by Mr Beaubien, certainly when it comes to the

words, sounds absolutely incredible. It appears that Mr Beaubien has obviously had some type of conversion on the way to Damascus when it comes to landfills in this province. I say this because at

the beginning of his presentation, Mr Beaubien spoke about not playing politics with this and then proceeded to do just that. I find it a little bit interesting but also a bit disturbing, because I

want to also put on the record some issues that are very, very serious about an expansion of a hazardous waste landfill that was expanded in 1997 in a fast-tracked process, and it was fast-tracked

under criteria for that company to be able to expand its market share. That's the criteria, not as a problem-solving mechanism.

The reason I find this resolution interesting -- I also look at actions, not just words. We can say whatever we want to say to make ourselves look good. That is

something that unfortunately happens much, much too often in this political world. But it is the actions that validate what one says. When it comes to the riding Mr Beaubien represented before

1999, the municipality near Brigden, St Clair township now, actually saw an expansion. I understand the member worked for Phillips, I believe, for a period of time, so he certainly has an

understanding of the waste industry, if you will.

Unfortunately, the member, as part of the Red Tape Commission, was instrumental in some areas and participated in removing regulations that I believe actually

protected the public interest. When it came to the expansion of the now Clean Harbours site, which is now going to be bringing in toxic hazardous waste -- we're talking about this diversion of 50%

of the waste when in fact for the last four or five years, hazardous waste importation to the province of Ontario, because of the lax regulations, has quadrupled. On one hand we're saying, "We have

a good idea. Let's divert waste. We don't want Toronto garbage coming into Lambton county." On the other hand, what we have done is open the doors to toxic hazardous waste from literally around the

world into that area. That happened under Mr Beaubien's watch and it happened under this government's watch and continues to do so, yet we do not have any political will to change the regulations

to stop this practice.

I do agree with one thing: this practice of expansion of landfills is archaic and should become extinct. It will become extinct if we at least would move

forward, as other jurisdictions have done, to do what they call on-site treatment. What does that mean? That means we don't export-import waste but deal with it in the jurisdiction that actually

generates the waste.

On the one hand, Mr Beaubien says we have to stop diverting, but on the other hand, he accepts the notion that we can send waste to other jurisdictions. There's

a bit of a contradiction there. Nonetheless, the resolution is what I firmly believe in, that we have to stop generating the quantity of waste we do in this province, in the manufacturing sector as

well as in our own personal lives.

On this conversion on his way to Damascus -- I say this because I have not heard the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex speak out strongly on the notion of

importation of hazardous waste. He was there when he allowed the expansion, when it was done silently, when it was done quietly. He was part of that silence when the expansion took place so it

became the largest toxic hazardous waste in the country.

The rhetoric here is commendable, but the actions speak to something else. I would certainly like to challenge the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex to support

the stopping of the toxic hazardous waste that's coming in from Sydney, Nova Scotia, some of the most toxic substances in this country that are going to be trucked in from Sydney. I don't see the

member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex speaking out on this issue. His silence is overwhelming.

I would also suggest that the whole issue of environmental degradation that has caused -- and I don't buy this notion that Lambton county is the best place to

landfill. No place is the best place to landfill, because eventually, according to the contract on the expansion, it says that the long-term consequence is contamination of the groundwater. That's

a given. I would suggest that the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex put action into the words and also take a stand to advocate for the residents in the area who feel they have become the toxic

haven for North America because of an expansion that took place under his watch. Now he states in his resolution that he wants to have this goal of 50% to divert waste from landfill sites, that it

must become a new criterion and goal. Again, I commend the member from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex for his conversion on the road to Damascus.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke North): First of all, I'd like to commend my colleague the deputy from Lambton-Kent-Middlesex for introducing this

resolution. To go to the very heart of the matter, we have been discussing this issue for several years, but we don't seem to be making a terrible amount of good progress. Yet if you look outside

Ontario, and even within Ontario, there are solutions. What we ought to be focusing on, particularly since the feds have now declared that Kyoto is the promised land of the future -- it's incumbent

on us as legislators to start finding the practical and sensible solutions for trying to get to that road. You can talk about ratifying the Kyoto solution, but you have to face some practical

realities in dealing with garbage in this province or in other parts of Canada. We need to be looking at ways we can accommodate and solve the problem, because it's not getting any better.

As the heart of the resolution Mr Beaubien has suggested, the landfill method, while it may appear great in rural Ontario and the smaller municipalities, and,

from the city of Toronto's viewpoint, just exporting garbage down the highway to Michigan, it is not a solution at all. It's the 12th-century, antique solution, I'd say. If that's where we want to

stand as a government and the opposition wants to criticize us for that, that's fine, but it doesn't solve the problem.

So what are the solutions to dealing with the problem? Well, it seems to me that we need to look at a new focus, not on compliance and enforcement, which is the

usual approach of the Ministry of the Environment of the day, particularly the ministry we have in this government. We need to be seeking out combinations of new capital and new technology to solve

the problem.

If you look right in Ontario, we have one good solution, even though we had to put $11 million into it. Go to the city of Guelph, with its wet-dry separation

solution. There is a practical way of helping to solve garbage. Does the city of Guelph have a landfill problem? No, they do not. They have a new facility recycling and recovering materials and

selling them back into the community or into other parts of the province.

If you move across the pond to Europe, the European Union now has a directive dealing with this issue.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): Not that socialist haven.

Mr Hastings: Would you just for one time listen, member for Timmins-James Bay?

Mr Smitherman: Take a deep breath.

Mr Hastings: Thanks, member for Toronto Centre-Rosedale.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke North has the floor. He is the only member who has the floor.

Mr Hastings: If the members across the way don't want to hear the solution, they can continue to be captives of their own rhetoric, as they

usually are.

We need a solution that is either gasification technology or pyrolysis. Those are two new ways of handling landfill garbage. Where do we find these facilities?

Well, of all places, Sweden, Denmark, Germany. Why has Europe moved ahead of us in North America and in Ontario in dealing with this solution? Because they've engaged themselves in trying to find

those solutions.

Granted, there are the usual critics of emissions coming from this particular technology. If we go back to the ideological blinkers -- we have all have them; I

have them as well. All you've got to do is look at --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Etobicoke North has the floor.

Mr Hastings: Very seldom do I speak in this Legislature any more, because it has become not a place of discussion but a place of simply

exchanging insults, and I have been involved in those myself. For at least three minutes, could we have a little attention? If you don't want to hear it, then leave and go have a coffee. That's all

I'd say.

Anyway, if you look at the select committee on alternative fuel sources and go through the recommendations, some 43 we've implemented on this side, the

government, one of the solutions we left out was the whole waste-to-energy solution: taking all that landfill garbage and utilizing it as a recoverable resource. It was left out because a member of

the NDP said, "If you're going to use incineration, it's not going to work, because you still have the emissions of furans and dioxins." Well, let's take a look at what is happening with some of

the new technologies, particularly gasification, for those smaller facilities in the European Union. Effective pollution control equipment has nearly reduced it to zero. That's a pretty good

record, in my estimation. If you can reduce the emissions that are damaging from a health viewpoint 99%, I'd say it is worth trying on a small scale.

If you don't like that solution, then let's look at the city of Guelph as an example that the city of Toronto needs to start thinking about in terms of a major,

major initiative in having better environmental control of all the garbage we are producing in the greater Toronto region. The city of Guelph is one of the ways; it's not the only way.

The problem in this thinking is that the usual attitude is, "We can't do this unless the provincial or federal government comes through with a pile of money to

get these facilities going." My proposal, in combination with the thrust and heart of Monsieur Beaubien's resolution, is to tap the private markets, whether it's the venture capital markets or any

other way of involving private enterprise, particularly from the financial viewpoint of getting these facilities up and going.

The ongoing maintenance and financial controls can be done through -- as in the city of Guelph, if you use that as your model, and it's not the only model

available in today's modern technology market -- a user fee on the amount of garbage you put out. That is how the city of Guelph, in combination with $11 million from the province over the last

number of years, plus ongoing user fees and the sale of the recoverable materials at the other end, has helped to get this facility up and going and continuing.

A lot of people today in this province have a pile of money and they're not quite sure where to put it. They're putting it into Ontario and Canada savings bonds

or into some initial offers from companies, but there's also a growing area of income trusts. To me, if we had imagination from the brokerage community and the technology companies, they could

create over time a very solid income trust that people would be willing to buy in units on the open market. Why is that a possible solution? Because over time we know we're going to have garbage,

despite the best efforts of the packaging industry to reduce some of the packaging -- and they have a long way to go, in my estimation, in dealing with this problem. But at least there's a

continuous cash flow distribution back to the investors. These are the kinds of new approaches that, in my estimation, we need to deal with this problem. Otherwise, we end up having the old

compliance conflict between rural and urban living, of moving garbage out of large urban areas into rural areas, resulting in ongoing environmental assessments involving the dumping of garbage,

which impacts very adversely the land table and the water quality in this province. So we need to break through and have new solutions.

En conclusion, je crois que cette résolution de M. Beaubien indique une grande opportunité pour créer plusieurs nouvelles directions -- une

nouvelle combinaison qui utilise les finances dans un partenariat avec les compagnies de technologie. On a grand besoin de cette combinaison pour trouver une solution et développer une

capacité de réduire les déchets dès l'origine des citoyens de la province de l'Ontario et de la ville de Toronto.

We all talk about Kyoto. Here is an actual means of grasping this very difficult concept, where we have great rhetoric on both sides, and actually moving to try

to accommodate the gas emissions to get our garbage down. What we're going to have to do is tap into the financial markets and into the technology, because it's already available. What we need is a

working solutions group, in my estimation, of MPPs, députés from all sides in this Legislature, who are interested in a solution, whatever that may be. One can disagree about the

technologies, but at least we're moving toward trying to solve this problem once and for all.

What we need is the engagement of the investment community, of private investors. What we need is the involvement of forward-thinking entrepreneurs and less

emphasis on compliance and enforcement. That's going to be there forever, as long as you have garbage dumps. But we can do a parallel movement as we go into this 21st century that involves engaging

these people to try new pilot projects, whether it's the city of Guelph or the city of Toronto. I would really like to see them develop and engage in a new solution.

What this government also needs to do is to start looking at putting pressure on municipalities, whether it's the city of Toronto or other places, that want to

export garbage across the border. While it may be an exportable commodity under NAFTA, to me it's a very dangerous practice, not only from the viewpoint of drivers on the 400-series highways, but

also of the wear and tear on our infrastructure.

In my estimation, this is the way to go: some kind of working solutions group to deal with the problem from the political, environmental, technological and

financial communities, and move ahead. That's why I strongly support the resolution of the member as he presented it today. I have tried to refrain from getting into who's to blame and who's not to

blame. It gets you nowhere. What we need are solutions. That's why I was so perturbed that somebody thinks we can't deal with it in that spirit. For once, let's make an effort. Perhaps we'll fail,

but at least we can say we really tried, because at the present moment we are in an impasse, where this whole approach is going to go on for years, and nothing is getting done. We've got to break

through that kind of thinking. We've got to change our attitudes about garbage and work toward new solutions and directions that provide some breakthrough and that get us, 10 years from now, to

where we will say, "Yes, this was a starting day." Monsieur Beaubien was the initiator of that new enterprise and initiative. I commend him very much for that, and I hope other members of the House

would try to seek a solution in this hour rather than the usual stuff that I have been as guilty of as the rest of us, engaging in rhetoric as you look back. That's why I've refrained from it

today. I would hope you'd take a new spirit, a new approach, a new attitude in trying to resolve a very complex problem.

We do need the solutions. We owe it to our younger generations, these folks who are sitting right in front of the Speaker today. Otherwise, they're going to ask

in a few years, "Where was this generation in trying to solve a garbage problem?" Where were we? Let's stop this rhetoric. Let's try some new approaches. I don't have all the answers, but we need

to start afresh. I hope this would be the day we could do it.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this particular resolution. I like the part of the resolution that

talks particularly about waste diversion and what I think are the three Rs: reduction, reuse and recycling. I have a bit of a fear, as perhaps some others in the House do, that somewhere in this,

rearing its head, is incineration.

The member for Etobicoke North, who just spoke, was a member of the committee, as I was, and there were a lot of good suggestions that came forward to us. I was

pleased to hear him mention some of those suggestions that have in fact been helpful. The committee was very good in looking at a variety of options, but when it came down to it, I think what we

looked at as being the hierarchy was first of all reduction. I think everybody mentions, with reasonably good evidence, that there is overpackaging in North America. We tolerate a lot of packaging

that many of us would consider to be unnecessary. We recognize in food safety, for instance, and in other circumstances -- medicine and so on -- that packaging has to be the way it is. But in so

many instances a lot of the things we have purchased commercially are well overpackaged, and we could reduce that. That's source reduction. The first thing that we as a society have to do is look

at ways to reduce that waste.

The second is, how can we possibly reuse some of the products we have out there? I can recall about a dozen years ago, when I was discussing with some people who

were pretty progressive in that field then -- from Guelph, for instance; that has been mentioned -- that there's an opportunity to recycle a lot of wood waste. People laughed at the beginning of

that. Take a look today at what's happening at wood waste, how it's being used once again. Even though some of the scrapyards cause us no end of angst because of some of the things that happen in

there, scrap dealers were some of the original waste recyclers, taking metals -- particularly steel, but aluminum and other metals -- and using them once again. That means we don't have to put it

in a landfill or dispose of it some other way. When we talk about waste diversion, when we say "Divert," it should be to divert from a way of disposing of it. That's when we mean: diversion into

something that's relatively benign.

One of the things I want to caution members about, because the incineration crowd rears its head every time you get into a crisis of this kind, is that

incinerators are not the panacea that many people think they are. I commend to you a letter from Neil J. Carman, PhD, clean air program director, Austin, Texas, to the Ontario Ministry of the

Environment and Energy, September 14, 1995. He says:

"Most of the incinerators in our territory experienced mechanical and operational problems which were often linked to human error." He goes on to say, "I am

quite skeptical of the ability of incinerators to operate in full and continuous compliance with the most stringent permit requirements. It is technically remote to achieve even 80% continuous

compliance." I don't have time to quote all of it, unfortunately, but at the end he says, "Incineration ... of garbage is merely trading one set of manageable problems for another set of more

difficult problems."

So I simply want to say that those who hold out incineration as the panacea are, I think, moving in the wrong direction. This is not to say that we shouldn't

look at new technologies. Our committee looked at many of those. Our landfill sites already produce gases. We can use that methane gas for producing electricity. Most progressive communities are

now capturing that gas and utilizing it. Does that mean we want to continue to have huge landfills? No, but we are making some use of them.

We have to set ambitious goals, in my view. If you don't set ambitious goals, you end up not achieving them. I know there was a goal set that by the year 2000 we

were to have 50% reduction -- in other words, diversion from landfill or incinerators. Well, that's only about 25%. It's extremely disappointing and not acceptable.

Guelph is a good example. People should look at Guelph, should look at Edmonton and Halifax for these innovations: the wet-dry separation and the composting that

goes on. There are a myriad of possibilities out there that we have to pursue if we're going to solve this problem, whether it's home composting or it's the municipality doing the composting. We

have suggested that all over Ontario that we should have a 60% diversion rate -- all over Ontario. The member says there are some communities that achieve better than that. Good for them. They

should be complimented for doing that.

We should look at the alternative fuels report and many of the recommendations that have come from that. I won't get into the detail, but I think that's

important. We have wood waste, we have metal waste, we have rubber waste, we have plastic waste, all of which can be converted and used once again or recycled. So we should be disappointed and in

some cases we should be ashamed as a society that we have not achieved a much greater diversion rate, but we shouldn't despair at that, because the initiatives are out there.

The member for Etobicoke North talked about Europe. Europe gives us many examples of how to deal with packaging, how to deal with waste diversion. It really

takes the will to do it and it really takes goals that are measurable and goals that are enforced; in this case, it must be by the Ministry of the Environment of Ontario.

I'm a bit worried that the member is steering into incineration. I worry about that, but I do like the part of the resolution that talks about the diversion of

waste from landfill and incineration and other ways of disposing.

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome students from the great school of Michael Goetz in

the great state of Mississauga who are listening intently to this discussion on landfill. I welcome them here and I know you would want to do so.

The Acting Speaker: Of course that is not a point of order, but welcome.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I don't know if I have much of a voice left today. Last night was my third night in a row of being here

until after midnight trying to get my private member's bill, Bill 77, passed, which has not happened and will not happen.

I want to say to the member that he hasn't defined in his resolution what he means by "cost-effective, modern technology." There are many out there, but I want

to say at the outset that the new word now for "incineration" is "combustible," It's not incineration any more. I remember when I first got involved in the incineration fight, when Mr Bradley was

the minister, because the city of Toronto wanted to build a huge garbage incinerator in my riding. I was a private citizen at the time. We had a polluting one there that we wanted to shut down, and

they wanted to build a new one.

I remember hearing all the same arguments we're hearing today about the newer technology: "Oh, it's new technology. There are very few emissions and the

smoke-stack is really high and it will disperse all over. Don't worry about it. It's good technology." We're hearing the same thing today about these capital-intensive combustion technologies. I

don't support them, for a number of reasons, but I'm going to give you the two main ones.

One is that these units are often privately built and operated, and they're financed by a guaranteed through-put agreement. What this actually means is that

once the municipality builds one, it has to feed it garbage, so this short-circuits waste reduction efforts. That's been proven. They're also not cost-effective; they're very expensive. If we talk

about garbage as also a resource, talk about it in terms of waste diversion instead of just garbage, what this is then all about is that when you get into those kinds of technologies and building

those kinds of combustible capital-intensive technologies, you've got to feed it garbage all the time. Then it becomes out of sight, out of mind, which is the spiral we've been in all these

years.

We all know now that landfills are out of the question and that we have to find other ways of dealing with our garbage. The objective is to bring in very solid

and very good timelines, with incentives to do more composting and to get rid of so much of the packaging, as they have done in Europe.

The other reason combustion technologies are not a good thing, are the wrong way to go, is that they always produce unstable toxic substances, whether it goes

up the stack or not, which it's true, in the new kinds of technology it doesn't in the same way as just throwing it into a big hot fire. The combination of the burning of plastics at very high

temperatures under that technology actually created dioxins.

I remember being told at the time, "Don't worry about that. It's such a tiny amount of dioxin and it's so well dispersed that it's nothing to worry about." The

pollution abatement equipment within the existing technology would get most of the toxins out. But then what happened was you had fly ash and bottom ash, which was extremely toxic, especially the

fly ash, which had to be sent to landfill. We're hearing today from the member for Sarnia-Lambton, and we all know about the problems with hazardous waste in her riding. She makes an issue of it

time and time again, as she should.

We have to understand, as we talk about these new combustion technologies, that some of the same problems still exist, so I've outlined them. You've got the

problem with taking away the incentive to do all the other things around the three Rs and getting more and more into composting, and the incentive to come up with really good timelines to get these

programs up and running, as they have in Europe. That's why they're so much more advanced than we are, because governments there were forced to bring in very strict timelines when they banned

incineration, banned landfill. What do you do? I met, as we all did, with some of the environmental industry representatives who were here earlier this week. They made it very clear that that's the

kind of incentive they need. They are exporting some of the newer technologies all around the world because they can't get them up and running here. Why are they exporting them all around the

world? Because in some areas, some jurisdictions, they have brought in these very tight time frames with the banning or the phasing out of landfill and incineration.

Garbage never just disappears. The idea of throwing it into a hole in the ground or throwing it into some kind of combustion process -- you don't have the

stuff coming up the stack, but it doesn't disappear. You still have, as I've said, an unstable toxic substance that is created out of that technology and these are landfilled. So we're creating in

that process a situation where you have to deal with that residue. It's got to go somewhere, and it ends up going in some hole in the ground.

To get into discussions around moving toward that technology is wrong-headed. What we need to do is what the city of Toronto did, and contrary to what members

in the government today said about Toronto being far behind, the city has recently, after the big fight over the Adams mine, which we will all remember, and I am proud to say I played a very large

role, along with Jack Layton and David Miller at city council, and others, David Ramsay from the Liberal caucus -- we fought that very hard and we stopped that.

While I'm on that subject, let me say that we've just recently received information, a secret report, a document we've got our hands on, that shows that

northern Ontario proponents of the plan -- it's not dead yet; they're bringing it back again -- to bring garbage from Toronto to the Adams mine have it once again on the table, and the plan this

time is to get it out of the hands of government altogether. What they're trying to do, what they're proposing, is to have one of the Smart Growth panels --

Interjection.

Ms Churley: Excuse me. The mayors and others in northern Ontario have come together because they want the jobs. It's wrong that we're trying

to resolve a waste management problem because of the desperate need for jobs up north. That is wrong-headed as well. We need to do some economic development up there that doesn't involve this

constant fight to try to get Toronto's garbage to throw in a pristine lake up there. But it has opened up again because they now realize they're not going to be able to get the city of Toronto to

agree, so they want the government to mandate a special panel and give them the absolute authority to make this decision. I want to say very clearly that we will not stand for it, that it will not

happen, but it's disheartening to those who are very concerned about the environmental aspects of that that it's back on the table. We will fight that.

The government had an opportunity to do some of the things that are before today when it brought in its Bill 90. I worked very hard on that bill, and I made, I

believe, about 18 amendments, which were all turned down. I want to make clear to you some of the things in the government's own bill that would have advanced us so far in terms of our timelines

here and getting to 100% diversion, which is what we have to get to essentially.

But what they did was, and I made an amendment about this, the bill does not support the composting. This is the government's own Bill 90. It does nothing to

support and encourage municipalities to get organics out of the waste stream. Can you believe that? The government brought in a bill to deal with waste management -- I prefer to call it waste

diversion -- and there was nothing in it about composting. We all know that if we don't get the organics out of the waste stream -- that is the worst thing that goes into landfill. It's the

organics that cause all the leachate and all the environmental problems. We argued ferociously to get something in the bill about waste management on waste diversion, on composting, and they

refused to accept that amendment.

Also, the bill that the government brought in also did not put a priority on waste reduction. What else did it not do? Incredibly, as we stand here today to

talk about needing to become more aggressive about how we deal with our waste, Bill 90 did not set waste reduction targets. Can you believe that? In the resolution before us today there is what I

believe is still too little, too late. But the government's own bill on waste reduction has nothing about reduction targets. Again, we brought in an amendment to try to deal with that.

There are a number of other amendments I made to improve Bill 90. For instance, there are no incentives in it to reach targets. It allows industry to get away

without giving any money. There are no concrete timelines for the money. It actually prevents the implementation of a deposit return system for the LCBO. It allows the newspaper companies to pay

their way out of it.

That's what we had. We had an opportunity with Bill 90 as a government bill to make it very, very strong. Every single amendment that was made was turned

down.

I do want to say in defence of Toronto, after the attacks from the Tory members today, that the NDP waste reduction target, by the way, is 80%, as stated in

our urban vision. That number should be in this resolution today. But the city of Toronto has adopted an aggressive plan for the diversion of waste from landfill. Their targets are aggressive and

they're realistic, including 60% diversion from landfill by 2006 and 100% diversion by 2010. I have their plan here. I'm not going to have time to read it all out, but I would request that all the

government members who are taking great delight once again in attacking the city of Toronto -- they don't live in the city. Many, many people come into this city to work and leave their garbage

behind, so it works both ways. Some of our garbage is shipped out, and I agree that it's wrong. We have to find other ways to deal with our garbage. But at the same time, there are lots and lots of

people coming into Toronto, leaving their garbage behind. So the reality is we're not dealing with the big problem of people just treating their garbage like garbage and just leaving it behind,

wherever they may be.

In the Waste Diversion Task Force 2010 Report from the city of Toronto,

summary of recommendations, "A" is source-separated organics. There's a whole section.

They made that their biggest priority. They have a good plan as to how to do that and there are projects up and running now. But they also say that they want to "engage the marketplace to provide

the required treatment capacity in 2002 to manage the city's source separated organics prior to the commissioning of the city's new Dufferin transfer station anaerobic digestion facility," which is

now under construction. They have a take-it-back program, "that $20,000 be put aside from the 2001 funding available for diversion programs, to help with the administration." It goes on and on

about how to set up a program so that industry takes back a lot of the packaging that they are producing.

Again, we have seen that it works in Europe. When you have these aggressive policies in place -- again, the environmental industry folks who were here this

week said that that's what they need to get their technology up and running here and what they need to get industry, the producers of the packaging, as they have in Europe, to actually reduce the

packaging so that it doesn't have to be sent to landfill in the first place.

They talk about new and emerging technologies, but they're not just talking about these things in a study, with recommendations just in a study; they have an

active task force set up to bring these newer technologies around anaerobic digestion to compost. They have a task force up and running to get these things in place. Many of the councillors at city

hall agree that trucking the garbage to Michigan is not the answer either. We would all agree with that; it is certainly not the answer. I would just say to the member that I wish his target was

more aggressive and that I'm really worried about incineration becoming --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Response?

Mr Beaubien: I would like to thank the members for their comments, the members from Sarnia-Lambton, Etobicoke North, St Catharines and

Toronto-Danforth. I would like to comment on the comments that the member for Sarnia-Lambton made when she said that I had been converted on my way to Damascus. First of all, I don't know where

Damascus is and I don't think it's a very safe pace to go right now. I would like to put on the record that on Thursday, June 15, 2002, I introduced a very, very similar resolution dealing with

landfill. She talks about being converted; I was converted a long time ago.

Here's what the member for Sarnia-Lambton said: "I would like to say that I'm pleased to speak on this resolution. This whole issue of environment and

environmental responsibility, it's a culture of responsibility, it's not a culture of blame." I would have to agree with that. She also mentioned about the hazardous landfill site in her riding,

which was part of my former riding. I do agree that everybody has concern with this. I'm going to address my comments to the people that may be watching at home. This landfill site has been in

place for 40-some-odd years. Fifteen years ago, when I was mayor of the community of Petrolia, when it was under the name of Tricil they tried to expand the incinerator. The town of Petrolia raised

some opposition. I would ask the people that have those "Stop the toxic sludge" on your lawns today, where were you 15 years ago?

Furthermore, with the expansion in 1997, when there were four public hearings in the community of Brigden, now the St Clair township, I attended two or three

of these meetings. And I say, where were you each and every one of you at that time? That is the question we have to ask. There's no doubt that none of us like to see hazardous waste being landfill

in our backyards. However, for the record, that landfill has been there for 40 years.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item 75. I will place the questions related to the disposition of

this item at 12 o'clock noon.

FIRST NATIONS MINING

AND FORESTRY REVENUES

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should, in consultation with First

Nations communities of northern Ontario and with other levels of government, develop and implement mechanisms whereby those communities can share in the revenues from mining and forestry operations

that are conducted in their traditional territories.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bisson: I am more than pleased to be here this morning debating this motion. I want to tell members of the assembly, this is somewhat of an

historical moment because something of this magnitude has never been tried before. I want to explain to the members where we going with this motion, what it's all about and why we're calling on you

to support the First Nations communities of northern Ontario.

First of all by way of background, just so you know, we're fortunate and unfortunate in northern Ontario with the find of the DeBeers mine. Just outside of

Attawapiskat, DeBeers has been working on developing a diamond mine for a number of years now. It has been both a blessing and a curse to the community. It has been a blessing in the sense of an

economic opportunity, but it has been a bit of a curse in the sense that there are no clear rules about how that community can share in the benefits of that operation if it should become an

operating mine. For a number of years, the community has been struggling with trying to negotiate with DeBeers some sort of an equitable arrangement so that whatever benefit comes from the

activities of that operation, community members and people generally within the region are able to benefit by what has happened and what could happen with DeBeers.

The problem has always been that First Nations communities are treated very differently under law when it comes to how we share with revenue. Let me put it

very simply. I live in the community of Timmins. It's a mining community. Any mine that is developed in our community, there's a very simple process for the municipality to be able to get benefits

from the activity of mining. It's called assessment. So when the municipality of Timmins, as all other municipalities, has an activity like that, they are able to charge an assessment through tax

and collect that money to develop infrastructure, build sewer and water, develop the needs of the community. The unfortunate reality in the way the federal government has set up reserves is that

they've basically given those communities no mechanism by which to share in the economic activity that happens in and around their communities and on their traditional territories. So you have a

very inequitable situation. If you were to have a DeBeers set up in Timmins, clearly Timmins would have some mechanism to extract revenue to pay for community services, but because it's up on James

Bay and is in the traditional territories of the First Nations, there's no such mechanism.

So my resolution simply says that we want a process to start, by way of a declaration in this House this morning, so that the provincial government, in

consultation with the First Nations communities, develops some sort of mechanism, and whatever that mechanism is will be determined by that process. I don't know if it should be a tax. I don't know

if it should be assessment. I don't know if it should be a revenue-sharing formula. That's something that has to be determined through the process. All I want to have started today is that this

House says, "We, this House, agree with the concept and want the government to sit down with the First Nations to start the process of discussion so we can develop policy and legislation in this

province that treats First Nations communities fairly and in the same manner as other communities in the enjoyment they have in their communities."

I want to say as well that it's a bit of an irony that we're here today, because we know that back in 1977, there was a declaration that was made by the

Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, the former Treaty 9. In that was a meeting between the provincial government and the then Treaty 9, which is now Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, that basically called on the

provincial government to do a couple of things. I just want to read very quickly what it called for. It said, "Our custodian role must remain with us. It is our sacred duty" -- as First Nations --

"to pass it on to our unborn children. We do not accept the illegal seizure of our lands by the Europeans." It went on to ask that the government become involved in their right to develop their

individual communities. What they called for by way of the declaration back in 1977 was to get the province, a signatory to Treaty 9 and Treaty 3 and others, to sit down with the First Nations

communities so we can figure out how we can make sure the communities can get the tools they need to share in projects that happen in and around their community and to make sure they have the

ability to share in what happens when it comes to economic activity.

Here we are a number of years later, and not one step has been taken since that declaration. I've got to say one thing I've learned from dealing with my

friends the Mushkegowuk Cree and others: man, you guys are patient, really patient. If it was the city of Timmins or the town of Hearst or the city of Toronto that had to face what your people are

going through, I don't know what would happen, but I can tell they would not be as patient as the Mushkegowuk Cree and other First Nations people in this province. I say to the government, patience

only goes so far. We need to make sure we're able to take this motion forward so we can start that process.

I also want to say in passing that the problem we have in our communities is that the funding formulas set up by the federal and provincial governments to fund

communities, in my view and I think in the view of my friends from the Mushkegowuk Cree, are just enough to allow the communities to fail. We never give our communities enough money to allow them

to do what we take for granted in our communities. We never get enough for housing.

I look at communities like Kashechewan. My good friend Leo Friday, chief of Kashechewan, is here. I look at people like -- well, I'm not going to go through

all the names because I'd run out of time. I'll just use Kashechewan as the backdrop. Here you have a community where there's a desperate need for housing, a desperate need to provide much-needed

services that we consider to be basic in our communities. The federal government transfers just enough money so you can't make it. It puts the community in the position of failure. They don't give

you enough money to do what you need to do. As a result, it just sets things up to fail.

What the First Nations communities are saying is, "If you're not going to fund us with proper funding formulas, what we really want, in the end, is our own

ability to do what everybody else does, and that is to share in the resources and activities happening in our traditional territories." We, as New Democrats, and I hope all the members of the

assembly, believe in the basic concept that we need to treat our First Nations people fairly.

I want to relate also, in the few minutes I've got left, a story that was told by my good friend Leo Friday yesterday in a meeting we had with Minister

Elliott, the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services. He related to our assembled gathering a very powerful presentation that gave the story about how in his community, unfortunately,

as in many other First Nations communities, there is extremely high unemployment, as much as 90%. People are forced, because of the situation that has been imposed on them, to live in a cycle of

welfare. What adds insult to injury is that the welfare is not even enough to survive. The rules, in the way they're set up and the way the money is sent out, is forcing people to make decisions

about not paying a hydro bill, not buying food or not paying their rent. It puts the whole community in a situation of extreme hardship. I thought the presentation that Chief Friday made yesterday

was to the point.

I hope the government understands that we also have a responsibility beyond just what my motion is today to look at what levers we have within the province to

deal with the needs of the First Nations community.

We have a very different history in the province of Ontario. We are the only provincial jurisdiction to have signed treaties with First Nations communities. We

signed Treaty 9 back in 1905 and amended it in 1929-30. We are only province across Canada to have been signatories to the treaties. The problem we have is that, as a province, we've never figured

out what that means, because when the treaties were signed the powers the province had were somewhat different. As we assumed responsibility for various activities such as resource development, the

province has never been an active participant in figuring out what their responsibility is as a signatory to the actual treaties. This motion, in my view, will assist us as a province to determine

what our role and responsibilities are as a signatory of that treaty.

I just want to say to the members in the House in the minute that I have left that I hope we're able to count on your support. The motion is a very simple

motion.

The Mushkegowuk Cree are here today. We have chiefs, deputy chiefs and various people from all the communities of the Mushkegowuk council: Teresa Hall from

Attawapiskat, the chief who negotiated the DeBeers agreement; we have with us Leo Friday from Kashechewan, chief of Kashechewan; we have Moose Factory represented by both deputy chief and chief,

Norm Hardisty and Charlie Cheechoo; we have the grand chief of Mushkegowuk council with us today, Mr Ernest Beck; we have with us as well representatives from the communities of Fort Albany and

other communities within the Mushkegowuk Cree.

They're asking you here today to support this motion so we can start the process of giving them the ability to become full partners in this province when it

comes to economic development opportunities on their traditional territories. It's a simple motion. It's calling on a process so they are able to find a way, with our provincial government, to

determine how they can best share in the economic activities on their traditional territories.

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I am pleased to rise today to address the private member's business put forward by the member for

Timmins-James Bay.

I appreciate the member's interest in the welfare of Ontario's First Nations. Our government does not support the concept of sharing government revenues

derived from forest management with First Nations communities. However, I believe that our government has made every effort to ensure that aboriginal people share in the benefits of resource

development.

I specifically want to address forest management on crown lands and the many ways in which our government has worked to ensure that First Nation communities

are involved in and benefiting from forest management.

First of all, let me provide a bit of background. In order for the Ministry of Natural Resources to carry out timber management on crown land in Ontario, it

needs the approval of the Minister of the Environment. The current approval, under the Environmental Assessment Act, was granted by the Minister of the Environment in May 1994. The approval is

valid for a period of nine years, which means it expires in May 2003. The 1994 approval was granted based on extensive public hearings on MNR's class environmental assessment for timber management

on crown lands in Ontario.

1994 timber EA approval will be met by May 2003.

The Ministry of Natural Resources submitted its timber class environmental assessment review to the Minister of the Environment in July of this year. The

ministry's submission contained a detailed account of its compliance with the 1994 approval, as well as important proposed amendments and a recommendation to extend the approval. The review was the

subject of a thorough and far-reaching process of consultation and careful study.

Public information centres were held across the province. As well, two preliminary documents were posted on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry and were

available on the ministry's Web site and through mailings to the interested parties, including First Nations communities and aboriginal associations.

Significant proposed amendments were outlined in the timber class EA review, because major steps have been taken in forest management and environmental

protection since the EA approval was granted in 1994. New legislation, progressive forest policies and innovative land use strategies have put Ontario at the forefront of sustainable forest

management. These advancements include the development of the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, the Ontario forest accord, Ontario's Living Legacy land use strategy, the Environmental Bill of Rights

and the improvements to the Environmental Assessment Act. The Ontario forest accord was a particularly important milestone, as it brought together MNR, the forest industry and non-governmental

agencies. The common goal of the accord is to make sure Ontario's forests remain healthy, large and diverse while providing for a healthy forest industry.

The review takes into consideration all of these developments. Ultimately, the review will make it easier to continually improve forest management activities;

give the ministry more flexibility to respond to the changing economic, social and environmental values of the people of Ontario; and better reflect the roles of the forest industry and MNR.

class EA approval required the ministry to negotiate locally with aboriginal people to identify and implement ways of ensuring more participation by aboriginal people in the benefits that accrue

from forest management. It is a commitment that the ministry has worked hard to keep, and with our forest industry partners, our efforts in this regard will be ongoing.

The ministry's district managers have been active in meeting with aboriginal people and the forest industry to hold discussions, share information, and

facilitate co-operation and dialogue to find ways to improve aboriginal peoples' involvement in forestry activities and ensure they receive the benefits associated with that involvement. In fact,

things have improved considerably for aboriginal communities since the 1994 approval. Economic development opportunities associated with forestry have increased. These have been outlined in the

annual reports on forest management provided to the Ontario Legislature and in the ministry's timber class EA review that I have already referred to.

A wide range of business opportunities has meant more jobs and income for aboriginal communities. Millions of dollars of silviculture contracts, joint ventures

and mutual agreements are arranged each year with aboriginal people by the forest industry and the ministry. I'll give you a few examples.

In Hearst, Dryden and Sudbury districts, a number of First Nations, including Eagle Lake, Constance Lake and Sucker Creek, carry out a range of silvicultural

activities, including pre-commercial thinning, manual tending, tree planting, pruning and cone collection. First Nations in the area are also involved in collecting data on regeneration, native

values mapping and forest inventories.

First Nations in Thunder Bay and Nipigon districts, such as the Whitesand and Rocky Bay First Nations, have contracted for harvesting as much as 70,000 cubic

metres of wood for sawlogs, veneer and pulpwood. In Fort Frances district, aboriginal businesses have contracted to haul about 40,000 cubic metres of wood and carry out road maintenance.

Aboriginal people are also directly employed in mill operations and supervisory work that takes place in the bush. The recent development of the mill in the

Kenora area has seen significant commitments by the forest company in the area of aboriginal employment.

By way of comparison, only about 100,000 cubic metres of wood were licensed to aboriginal people in 1986. By the year 2000, over 1.5 million cubic metres of

wood within the area covered by the timber EA were allocated to, cut by, and contracted to or offered to aboriginal people and businesses.

About one million cubic metres of crown timber were harvested by the aboriginal people. This is about 4% to 5% of the wood harvested in the province. The

estimated value is $30 million to $50 million.

I would also like to point out that the ministry is recommending revisions to the approval and will provide even more opportunities to aboriginal communities

to take

part in the development and implementation of forest management plans.

The members may be interested to know that the ministry is working on a project to realize economic potential in the far north, as well. Known as the Northern

Boreal Initiative, the project could result in hundreds of jobs, with First Nations taking a leadership role in managing local forestry operations.

The work of the Ministry of Natural Resources on this initiative supports the government's commitment to promote growth along all regions and industries, and

goes hand in hand with efforts of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines.

I can assure the members of this House that the Ministry of Natural Resources is committed to working with aboriginal people and the forest industry to

identify ways of continuing to improve aboriginal participation in the benefits of forest management.

For the reasons that I have just outlined, this side of the House will not be supporting the private member's bill of the member from Timmins-James Bay.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to begin by also welcoming the grand chief and other leaders from the First Nations here

today to the Legislature, and secondly, to say that I will be supporting the resolution. It is a resolution, not a bill, by the way, and I think it's a solid resolution. I'll be supporting it for a

variety of reasons.

One is -- and the member from Timmins-James Bay mentioned it -- that there's a certain fairness element in this, where other communities do share in revenue

from businesses and industries in their area, and I think in terms of fairness, the First Nations have a claim on this.

The second reason is that the one thing I'm very aware of is the enormous amount of talent in our First Nations and, I might add, a growing amount of talent,

as the very talented young people coming along can make a tremendous contribution to the economic well-being of the province of Ontario. This resolution, while it will not fundamentally change

things, is clearly a step in the right direction.

The third reason I support this is something I've learned here in the Legislature -- perhaps I knew it before, but it certainly has been amplified here -- that

too often we are faced with a choice of, "You have to make your mind up." You're either for this or you're for that. Right now I find that in Toronto, you're either for the police or you're for the

black community. To me, I'm for the police and I'm for the black community. I think we sometimes make these situations where we force people to kind of make their minds up. Are you for the mine and

forestry industry or are you for the First Nations? I think a legitimate answer can be, "I'm for both." One way that can happen is to put in place mechanisms that both force dialogue and also that

-- to use the jargon -- it's a win-win. I think this can be a win-win. I think clearly our mining and our forestry industries are fundamental to the province of Ontario. They are tremendously

competitive worldwide. We have to make absolutely certain that those industries continue to grow and blossom and be cost-competitive on a worldwide basis. They provide an enormous amount of the

province's wealth and jobs. But at the same time, it seems to me that that also can be done in co-operation with our First Nations. If we find mechanisms that encourage a dialogue and a mutual

co-operation, I think our mining and forest industries can be stronger and our First Nations can be stronger.

The next reason I'm supportive of this is that we have, frankly, much to learn from our First Nations. The member for Timmins said they're patient, and I know

that. They take a long view of things. If you want environmentalists, if you want to understand the environment, go to our First Nations. They think generations ahead, not months or weeks or years

ahead; believe me. We have much to learn from them on many things but particularly on a sustainable environment. They have a right to their communities and, more important, perhaps equally

important, we all benefit from those communities.

Our industries have much to learn from the First Nations on the environment. I've read some, I don't pretend to be an expert, but I've read much of the history

of the First Nations and, if you are interested in the environment, as I think all of us are in varying degrees, we can take lessons from our First Nations. I repeat myself, but Mr Bisson said if

they have been patient on this issue, it's because they see things in the long term.

It gets back to my belief that one of our roles here is to find the mechanisms that can encourage co-operation between our First Nations, and in this case our

forestry and mining industries. What the First Nations can bring, among other things -- as I said earlier, I am very impressed with the tremendous talent in our First Nations, much of it

underutilized because the opportunities have been denied. But there is an enormous and growing amount of talent. This particular resolution I think is worded in a way that provides quite a bit of

flexibility. It sets us in a direction that allows the flexibility, I think, for the First Nations, and dare I say the industries and governments, to find a long-term, workable solution.

The thing that has often concerned me here is that for some reason or other we seem almost to set up situations that result in conflict rather than in

resolution, as I said earlier in my remarks, that you've got to pick one side or the other. That is not a long-term solution. This provides some direction for the province, the industry, the First

Nations to work together in ways that can say, "Listen, the First Nations are as interested as anyone in good economic development for the province of Ontario, but it should be done in a way that's

co-operative with them, that their fundamental rights are not jeopardized and that we can get into, as I said earlier, this win-win situation."

I'm quite taken with the resolution. I think it provides the government, industry and the First Nations with a sense of direction on this. My experience has

been that the First Nations are clearly people of goodwill, looking for a sustainable solution that's consistent with their fundamental beliefs. I think this resolution will help to accomplish

that, so I'm pleased to stand in support of it and look forward to its adoption.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I'm very pleased to take

part in the debate of this resolution. I will be supporting this resolution

and I urge all other members to do so as well.

I want to begin my comments by pointing out that this not a new issue. What I've got is a document called the Declaration of Independence for Nationhood and

Governance of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation of Northern Ontario. This is a document that was presented to Ontario through the Honourable William Davis, Premier of Ontario, during the All Ontario

Chiefs' meeting at Queen's Park, Toronto, Ontario, on July 7, 1977, and presented to the Right Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, and senior cabinet during a joint meeting

between the National Indian Brotherhood Assembly of First Nations executive council in Ottawa on July 11, 1977.

So what is being sought here today is not something new or revolutionary. It is something that the Nishnawbe-Aski First Nation and the tribal councils that are

part of Nishnwabe-Aski have been seeking for some time. Their statement is clear: "We say to you that we have the right to govern our own spiritual, cultural, social and economic affairs." The

First Nations are geographically located in a part of Ontario where there are virtually no non-native communities, where you might find from time to time a teacher, a nurse or an airline pilot who

is a non-native person, but otherwise all the communities are aboriginal communities -- the largest geographic expanse of Ontario. So you have no non-aboriginal communities, all the communities are

First Nations communities, and they're simply saying over and over again that NAN communities seek to establish, intend to establish, their own capacity to govern themselves and the land where they

live. Why a non-native government that is essentially situated in southern Ontario would not recognize this claim and would not seek to work toward the furtherance of this claim is beyond me. If

you reflect upon it, we haven't exactly done such a great job of governing our own affairs, particularly from the environmental perspective.

The document makes for very good reading. But particularly interesting are the points which are set out near the end of the document, where in 1977, and I want

to emphasize that again, the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation said, "Today we are here to tell you who we are. We, the Nishnawbe-Aski, have inalienable rights. They are: the right to" govern ourselves -- I

don't think that's such a revolutionary concept -- "the right to receive compensation for our exploited natural resources; the right to receive compensation for the destruction and abrogation of

our hunting, fishing and gathering rights; the right to renegotiate our treaty as understood by our people, land and resources; the right to negotiate with the elected governments of your society

through appropriate levels of representation; the right to approach and negotiate the judicial, governmental and business institutions of your society in our quest for self-determination and local

control." I don't think these are revolutionary concepts. The resolution today really speaks to two of the points outlined in that document of 1977.

Why is this so important now? It's very important now because -- let's take, for example, the forest industry. We know, although this government doesn't want

to admit it, that we are facing a wood supply gap across northern Ontario that is already hitting in some timber harvesting areas and which will last until somewhere around the year 2035. It

doesn't mean that we have run out of timber. What it means is that the mature forest that is there is rapidly being harvested, and the new forest which is growing -- some of it started to grow in

the 1920s, 1930s, 1940s, after it was originally harvested -- will not be ready to harvest in some cases until 2020, and in other cases until 2035. So there is a wood supply gap. The existing

forest is being depleted. The new forest will not be ready for harvesting until 2035. Anyone who is familiar with northern Ontario, south of the 51st parallel, will know that there are literally

hundreds of paper mills, pulp mills, sawmills and other kinds of forest products mills which need a timber supply.

Some have suggested we'll get wood from Manitoba. Good luck growing timber on the prairies. Some have suggested we'll get wood from Quebec. Anyone who lives

along the Quebec border knows that Quebec is trying to get wood out of Ontario, and in fact, under this government, is succeeding in getting a lot of wood out of Ontario. Some of suggested we'll

get wood from Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota. I live on the Minnesota border. They have already run out of wood. They're approaching many private landowners in northern Ontario and saying,

"Please, can we get your wood?" One of the disturbing situations that's going to happen around Sault Ste Marie as a result of this government's wrong-headed policy is that we're very likely to see

wood come out of the Sault Ste Marie wood basket and head south into the United States. When that happens, along go the jobs and economic activity.

The reality is that wood, the timber to provide for those sawmills, paper mills and pulp mills, can only come from one place. It can only come from the

territory of these people north of the 51st parallel. I believe, hearing the member for Peterborough's speech earlier, what he has outlined is basically that this government does not want to

negotiate compensation; it does not want to a negotiate a formula for the sharing of the resource wealth. What this government has in mind, so often as we see it in southern Ontario, is that it

will grant the timber rights to forest companies. The forest companies who have been granted the timber rights will then hold all of the bargaining power and then First Nations are put in the

position of having to bargain with the timber companies who have the timber allocation, and try to see what they can get. That's what this government has in mind.

I just want to say very clearly to the members of this government: you are completely wrong. Your strategy is going to run into a brick wall because the First

Nations understand that their territory is the only territory from which timber can come. You haven't figured out yet how to grow trees in the middle of Lake Huron or Lake Superior, and I doubt

that you will in the next 20 years. The only place you're going to get the wood is from their territory. My advice to the government members is stop the masquerade and stop the process where

individual timber companies try to go in and play one First Nation off against another. Stop the masquerade, and in a spirit of co-operation and recognition of mutual respect, sit down with the

First Nations, sit down with the tribal councils and sit down with Nishnawbe-Aski Nation and begin the process of negotiating agreements which provide for a sharing of the resource wealth, and also

provide for the elements of control, land use planning, environmental protection, and protection of traditional rights that you would want if you were living north of the 51st parallel. That's

exactly what you would want.

You would not want someone who doesn't live amongst you, who has very little understanding of your way of life and has shown not the least bit of respect for

the environment south of the 51st parallel, to dictate how resource development is going to happen on your land. Let us recognize: it is not our land, those of us who reside in southern Ontario. It

is very much the territory of First Nations and has been long before any of us got here.

The final element as to why this is so important is that the development this government wants to facilitate north of the 51st parallel without negotiating

these kinds of agreements with First Nations in fact has happened in the area of southern Ontario south of the 51st parallel.

Just a brief history lesson as to what has happened, and that history lesson is really, I think, best exhibited in what I call the red pine and white pine

economy: Where I grew up used to be land covered with red pine and white pine forests, some of the most beautiful forests in the world. When those forests were initially timbered at the turn of the

19th century and early in the 20th century, the logging barons who came forward employed a lot of aboriginal people. In the community where I grew up, Fort Frances, there were three large red and

white pine sawmills. If you look at the employment records, many of the people who worked in those sawmills were aboriginal people from First Nations like Couchiching, Manitou Rapids,

Nicickousemenecaning or Onegaming. In fact, two of the sawmills that I know of were actually located on the reserve. But after the red and white pine forests were essentially depleted and those

mills were shut down and they moved to Jack pine and spruce sawmills and to pulp and paper mills, something happened. When the red and white pine mills were shut down, aboriginal people were put

out of work. But when new jobs were added in the spruce sawmills and in the Jack pine sawmills and in the pulp and paper mills, aboriginal people by and large weren't employed.

When we stopped running wood down the rivers and lakes, we stopped the river drives. Many of the people who worked on the river drives in those early days were

aboriginal people. But when we stopped the river drives and started transporting all the wood to the mills by truck, guess who lost their jobs? Guess who was excluded from the economy? Aboriginal

people. This cannot be allowed to happen again. That is why these kinds of agreements must be reached and we must demand, as legislators, that whoever the government of the day is gets to the table

and sits down in that approach of mutual respect, of recognition, and begins to negotiate those kinds of agreements.

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to the private member's business put forward by the member from

Timmins-James Bay. I'd also like to welcome the members of the First Nations who have made the trip down here today to the Legislature.

I do want to applaud the member for Timmins-James Bay for his ongoing concern for the First Nations communities, but I must put on the record that much of what

the member wants has already been implemented and is already happening.

The government supports impact benefit agreements and resource development agreements between companies and First Nations. In fact, one example of this is the

current Musselwhite agreement, which has a revenue-sharing provision voluntarily offered by the mining company. We applaud and encourage this type of partnership between developers and First

Nations communities.

The Ernie Eves government is already consulting with our First Nations communities in northern Ontario and with other levels of government on how they can best

share in the benefits that accrue to a community from mining and forestry operations, particularly when those operations and activities take place on their traditional territories. Let me tell you

how.

The provincial government is providing $500,000 over three years through the Ontario Trillium fund to assist the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation in land and resource

capacity development. That's happening right now. I was just looking at the press clippings from yesterday.

Our assistance will help increase NAN's access to expertise in forestry and mining. It will help expand NAN's participation in forest management, land use

planning, mineral exploration and economic development activities.

It will enable the hiring of two forestry coordinators and a mines and minerals coordinator who will contribute to the development of policies on resource

development and community economic development opportunities. I know in my own riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka, through the NOHFC, recently, Niigon Technologies has opened. It's just getting going.

There are many millions of dollars invested in this new high-tech plastic injection moulding plant right at Moose Deer Point First Nation in Parry Sound-Muskoka.

The Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is also participating in a working group with the Attawapiskat First Nation, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

and DeBeers to help the First Nation participate in and derive benefit from a potential diamond mining operation.

I can point to one particularly successful resource development agreement that has been signed between a mining company and First Nations in northern Ontario,

and that's the Musselwhite Mine operated by Placer Dome. Four First Nations and two First Nation councils signed a resource redevelopment agreement that provides benefits to the communities in

proximity to the mine. The original agreement was signed in 1992 and renegotiated last year. The agreement will run for the life of the mine.

There are four signatory First Nation communities that benefit directly from the agreement. The four signatory communities are Cat Lake First Nation and North

Caribou Lake First Nation from the Windigo First Nations Council, as well as Kingfisher Lake First Nation and Wunnumin Lake First Nation with the Shibogama First Nation Council.

Another eight affiliate First Nations can benefit indirectly. The agreement includes a target of at least 30% of the mine workforce being drawn from the four

signatory First Nation communities, with any remaining opportunities offered first to the eight affiliates.

Under this landmark agreement, the company provides a share of revenue from the mine to the signatory First Nations and First Nation councils.

The signatory communities also provide contract services to the mining operation, including general maintenance, food services, laundry service, road and dam

construction, nursing services and air transportation. Simply put, the mine generates a substantial amount of secondary activity that creates wealth and fosters well-being in a community that would

otherwise be without such opportunity.

I think it's fair to say that none of this could be happening if Ontario didn't have an investment climate that is conducive to attracting new mineral

exploration.

Estimates for the far north region are that the mineral and commercial forestry resources would likely generate $5 billion to $7 billion a year in economic

activity.

The Ernie Eves government recognizes the need to do more to assist far north residents in realizing the potential of those natural resources, the potential

they hold for unprecedented economic development and self-reliance among far north communities. To that end, the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines is coordinating a comprehensive economic

development approach for the area. The ministry will develop partnerships among First Nations, the private sector and other levels of government and help far north communities pursue economic

development opportunities.

While some First Nation leaders oppose resource development in their traditional territories, many others see the economic benefits of developing these

resources in an environmentally sound, sustainable manner. It boils down to a question of trust and understanding.

I think the members of this Legislature would be interested to know that, over the past two years, senior ministry staff have travelled throughout the far

north region meeting leaders and members of First Nation communities. In these exploratory discussions, ministry staff have undertaken a dialogue with First Nations about their mistrust of the

mining sector and the government.

There are also misconceptions and misunderstandings about the mineral development industry and the laws that regulate it. Gaps in credibility and understanding

we can and will bridge. There are partnerships we will develop and strengthen to assist First Nations in developing natural resources for their communal benefit.

Our record speaks for itself. We are on the ground and engaged with our First Nation partners and our mineral development stakeholders. For those reasons, this

side of the House will not be supporting this private member's resolution.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to indicate at the beginning that I intend to support this resolution. I am concerned when I hear

members say -- because this is private members' hour. This is where we are to take off our partisan hats. I know it doesn't always happen, but this is where we try to take off our partisan hats and

individually make some decisions. I've heard two government speakers say, "That's why we on this side will not be supporting this resolution." I would hope there are members on the governing side

who will say, "I'm here elected as the member from" whatever constituency "and I'm not necessarily going to fall into line with what the whip happens to say or what a couple of speakers happen to

say." They're certainly entitled to make those speeches, but I hope this isn't a government position that is going to prevent all members on the government side from either abstaining from or

supporting this resolution.

First of all, look at the resolution itself. It's not a radical resolution. The member for Timmins-James Bay I think has tried to accommodate all views in this

House. I look at this as a moderate resolution. It wasn't worded to provoke opposition, to somehow have those of us on this side of the House line up against those on the other side of the House

and make the governing side look bad. If he wanted to do that, he would have had a much more strongly worded resolution than we see here today.

Let me review it: "that, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should, in consultation with the First Nations communities in northern Ontario

and with other levels of government, develop and implement mechanisms whereby those communities can share in the revenues from mining and forestry operations that are conducted in their traditional

territories."

It's a very moderate resolution, a very reasonable resolution, one that is calling for dialogue, one that is calling for implementation in consultation with

all who are involved.

First Nations communities, aboriginal people in this province, do not seek to be dependent upon any level of government. If they were, it would be a very

difficult life because the funding mechanisms we see today from senior levels of government are inadequate. What First Nations communities are looking to is an opportunity to tap into that which

other communities in the north have been able to tap into; that is, revenues from, benefits of an economic nature from, the mining and forestry operations that are found in northern Ontario -- a

reasonable request.

If we were to say that a particular urban municipality in the north was looking for the opportunity to derive some revenue, some economic benefit from mining

and forestry operations within the borders of their municipality, I suggest that members of this Legislature would expect that that would be fine, that that would be exactly what should be

happening. We have the chiefs here today representing aboriginal people in the north, representing First Nations communities, simply asking for the same right and the same benefit.

As has been mentioned by the member for Timmins-James Bay, very often, and because of circumstances beyond the control of those who reside in the communities,

there have been very high levels of unemployment. This has then compelled people to seek social assistance. There isn't anybody who wants to be in that circumstance. Aboriginal people are asking

for the opportunity to be part of the development, to be part of the decision-making, to be the beneficiaries of economic development taking place in the north. Those of us who reside in the south

probably cannot understand nearly so well as those who reside in the north the circumstances facing First Nations communities and the lack of opportunity, in many instances, for aboriginal people

in this province.

This resolution allows us an opportunity to change that, to move forward from whatever the past was. The member did not in his speech try to cast blame on

anybody. He explained circumstances that exist and why those circumstances are unsatisfactory, but he did not engage in vitriolic finger pointing in his resolution or in his speech, nor did any of

the other speakers I have heard on this side of the House engage in that, nor, to be fair, on the government's side. That is why I would be hopeful that we would see some support from at least some

of the members on the other side, to allow First Nations communities to be equal partners, to be partners in the development that takes place in the north rather than having to rely on the goodwill

of people who are directly involved in the operations of forestry and mining industries.

Obviously, with the large number of aboriginal people in the north, one would expect that employment opportunities would be there. Many times they have not

been, and the benefits have been drained from northern Ontario to the benefit of southern Ontario and very often to the headquarters of the companies in the United States.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: Well, we have had traditional lands desecrated and environmental considerations placed in the background instead of the forefront

where First Nations wish to see them. I think a moderate, reasonable, progressive resolution of this kind merits the support of all members of this House.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): I rise just for a couple of minutes to talk, I guess, as a southern boy, someone who grew up in Toronto

and who literally has lived his whole life in southern Ontario. In fact, my first opportunity to travel to some of these northern places came as an elected member of this Legislature in the last

year. It was on that travel, to try to find out about questions of housing, municipal structure, social and economic conditions so that I could better be a critic in my portfolio here, that I had

an opportunity to go to the communities of Port Severn, Peawanuk and Moose Factory. It was the first time I had ever been to such places.

I have to tell you, what you find there is sad. What you find is a land full of wealth and opportunity, and energetic, wonderful people who simply want to

participate in what all of us here in southern Ontario have. What you see is that they live in poverty and despair. They have an absolute lack of work in some of those communities of 90%

unemployment. They do not want this for their children, as we would not want it for ours. They want an opportunity to be part of a system that can work for them as it works for us. We need to do

that. We need to give them the same opportunity we give people in southern Ontario. The same opportunity we give to towns, cities and regions in southern Ontario, we need to give to the people in

northern Ontario, particularly those of our First Nations communities. They need to have full partnership and ownership. If and when they have that, they won't be coming down here.

The member for Parry Sound-Muskoka questioned this and said, "We're already doing this." If we were already doing this, would this resolution be necessary and

would they be here in the Speaker's gallery looking for it? The answer is crystal clear: no, they would not be, because it would already have been done.

I want for the people of our First Nations what I want for the people of Toronto: to be partners and to share in our prosperity.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? Response.

Mr Bisson: First of all, I want to echo what my colleague said and thank all those who participated in this debate. If the issue had been

resolved and if everything is so wonderful in the province of Ontario, I say, like Mr Prue, why are the Mushkegowuk people here?

They're here because they're crying for help. They're saying they're not being treated equitably. When they look at communities south of the undertaking,

communities like Hearst and Timmins, they are envious. They say, "Look at those communities that can benefit from the mining and forestry activities that relate to their communities. Why do we sit

in our territories not able to share with others what is rightfully ours?"

All they're asking for is a simple thing: "Help us develop a process." Neither they nor I are telling you, "Do this or that." All we want to set up is a

process so that the government can sit down with the various levels of government in consultation with the First Nations people of the Mushkegowuk Cree and others to be able to develop a process on

how we make them full partners in our own province. I can't believe the government would not support that. I am almost speechless that the government would contemplate voting against something that

is so fundamental. We stand up and talk about the rights of people around the world. Let's look in our own backyard. Let's look at what's happening in these communities.

I know that there are honourable members on the other side of the House. I know that Mr Young, the minister responsible, had supported this motion when I

talked to him originally. I got the impression the government was going to vote for it. But I say, let's not repeat what's happening in South Africa where those people have been left behind by the

colonial attitude of what's happened in the development of those countries. That exists in our own backyard. I implore you to support this resolution so that we can give the communities of the

Mushkegowuk Cree and others the ability to do a very basic thing that we take for granted in our communities, and that is to be able to share in the economic prosperity that comes from the

development of resources in our communities. It's only a question of justice.

So I say to the members, the two government members that spoke, it was wonderful what you talked about but none of it affected the Mushkegowuk Cree. You talked

about all of the policies that deal with everything south of the undertaking. This motion is to deal with what will happen north of 51. There is nothing that has happened up to now, so I implore

you, please support this resolution.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on this ballot item.

WASTE MANAGEMENT /

GESTION DES DÉCHETS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 75.

Mr Beaubien has moved private member's notice of motion number 23. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. The motion is carried.

FIRST NATIONS MINING

AND FORESTRY REVENUES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We will now deal with ballot item number 76.

Mr Bisson has moved private member's notice of motion number 22. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 35; the nays are 39.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

Ms Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): As members know, the Conservative member for Simcoe North asked the Integrity Commissioner to review my

personal use of the overseas courier. That review is now complete.

I am pleased with the commissioner's ruling that none of the specific complaints under the integrity act made against me by Mr Dunlop were valid. I welcome his

statement that at no time did I intend that taxpayers incur any costs for this shipment.

I accept the commissioner's finding that I made an error in judgment and appreciate that he stressed that, "It would be unfair to characterize this as other

than an error in judgment made in good faith."

While the commissioner recommends that no penalty be imposed for the unintentional breach of the unwritten parliamentary convention, I do not take his ruling

lightly. As members know, parliamentary conventions are not defined in the act, and are generally accepted practices established by usage or custom. As the commissioner has recognized that

"Purolator advised ... that personal (as opposed to government) shipping was done frequently by members," I would encourage all members to learn from the clarifications and advice of the

commissioner. I know I will be taking much greater care in the future.

SANTA'S VISIT

Mrs Julia Munro (York North):

`Twas the night before Christmas,

when all through the abode

Only one creature was stirring,

and she was cleaning the commode.

The children were finally sleeping,

all snug in their beds,

While visions of Nintendo and Barbie

flipped through their heads.

And Dad was snoring

in front of the TV

With a half-constructed bicycle

propped up on his knee.

So only Mom heard

the reindeer hooves clatter,

Which made her sigh,

"Now what's the matter?"

With toilet bowl brush

still clutched in her hand,

She descended the stairs,

and saw the old man.

He was covered in ashes and soot

that fell with a shrug,

"Great!" she exclaimed.

"Now I have to clean the rug!"

"Ho, ho, ho," cried Santa.

"I'm glad you're awake.

"Your gift was especially

difficult to make."

"Thanks, Santa," said Mom,

"but all I want is time alone."

"Exactly," he chuckled,

"so I've made you a clone."

"A clone?" she muttered.

"What good is that?

"Run along, Santa;

I've no time for chit-chat."

Then out walked the clone --

the mother's twin,

Same hair, same eyes,

same double chin.

"She'll cook, she'll dust,

she'll mop every mess.

"You relax, take it easy,

go for a run."

"Fantastic," the mom cheered.

"My dream has come true!

"I'll shop and I'll read --

even sleep a night through."

From the room above,

the youngest did fret,

"Mommy, come quickly!

I'm scared and I'm wet!"

The clone replied,

"I'm coming, sweetheart."

"Hey," the mom smiled,

"she sure knows her part."

The clone changed the small one

and hummed her a tune,

As she bundled the child

in a blanket cocoon.

"You're the best mommy ever.

I really love you."

The clone smiled and sighed,

"And I love you too!"

The mom frowned and said,

"Sorry, Santa. No deal!

"That's my child's love

she is trying to steal."

Smiling wisely, Santa said,

"To me it is clear,

"Only one loving mother

is needed here."

The mom kissed her child

and tucked her in bed.

"Thank you, Santa,

for clearing my head.

"I sometimes forget,

it won't be very long

"When they're too old

for my cradle and song."

The clock on the mantle

began to chime.

Santa whispered to the clone,

"It works every time."

With the clone by his side

Santa said, "Good night.

"Merry Christmas, dear Mom....

You'll be all right!"

Sometimes we need reminding of what life is all about.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): It is more clear than ever that northern Ontario residents are nothing more than an

afterthought for the Ernie Eves government. Certainly the treatment people are getting through the northern health travel grant program proves that, as it is appallingly substandard. Even if your

claim is approved, you must now wait over three months to get your payment. For those who are unjustifiably turned down, the system for appeal is fraught with frustration. The Minister of Health

must initiate a thorough review of the program to at least make the process easier for people already under great stress due to their medical condition.

But the Minister of Health must also make some immediate corrections to the guidelines that are presently in place. Do you realize that midwives, who are

funded by the Ministry of Health, do not fit into the category of specialists approved for funding under the travel grant program? Despite the fact that most GPs no longer practice obstetrics and

most obstetricians no longer accept low-risk pregnancies, making midwives the only option for many women, the ministry will not have these valued professionals included in the travel grant program.

This is absurd and truly unfair.

Then we have the very sad situation faced by a constituent of mine whose wife was rushed down to southern Ontario earlier this fall for emergency care and who

subsequently died. When her husband's family inquired as to whether he could receive assistance to get back home, they were told he no longer qualified for a companion grant because his wife had

died. Minister, come on. This is a bitterly cruel loophole that is beyond description.

I've written you on both these issues and you've not favoured me with a reply on either matter. Please show some compassion and correct these unacceptable

flaws in the travel grant program.

CHRISTMAS EVENTS IN DURHAM

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): In the spirit of the season, I'd like to briefly mention just a few of the many Christmas events in my wonderful

riding of Durham.

In Port Perry, the Magical Christmas Eve parade was held November 30. I'm pleased to say a record attendance was reported. It was sponsored by the Scugog

Chamber of Commerce. Congratulations to Ray Northey, parade coordinator and also the director of the chamber of commerce. He received assistance from Margot and Ken Gadsden, Peter Crawford and many

other dedicated volunteers. I also thank Jim Grieves, who was kind enough to drive me in the parade.

On November 23, an estimated 40,000 attended the evening Santa Claus parade in Oshawa. Funds for the event were raised in part through local businesses and

organizations who each adopted one of Santa's reindeers. Congratulations to the Santa's Parade of Lights committee. Its members included John Burns, the chair, Robin Burns, Sharon Young, Kevin

Campbell, plus many other hard-working volunteers.

I should also mention such events as the drive-through nativity at Trull's Road Free Methodist Church in Courtice. Many have also enjoyed the readings of

Dickens's A Christmas Carol at the Newcastle community hall and St Paul's United Church in Bowmanville. These charitable fundraisers are held in conjunction with the CBC. This Saturday, branch 178

of the Royal Canadian Legion will host its "stuff a bus" event to collect non-perishable food and toys for needy families.

Finally, I would like to send greetings to Henry Downing and Merrill Van Camp, two lifelong friends who have not been well recently. My wife, Peggy, and I feel

fortunate because this year is the very first Christmas for our very first grandchild, Meghan Elizabeth Lohse, born December 2.

To the constituents of Durham riding, I wish season's greetings, Merry Christmas, best of health and good happiness for the new year, and to all members of the

House I extend the same greetings.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Recently, the Minister of Consumer and Business Services made inappropriate comments about an

administrator at the Grandview Lodge long-term-care home in Haldimand county. I quote Mr Hudak from the Dunnville Chronicle on November 20 when referring to his portion of the county: "I frankly

put more faith in their judgment than in that of an administrator who couldn't be elected dog catcher. It reinforced my feeling that there is an arrogance in the administration of the county."

Arrogance? These are comments unbecoming a minister of the crown. Haldimand county council are in fact elected officials, and they have asked the Ministry of

Health and Long-Term Care to redistribute long-term-care beds across Haldimand county from the redeveloped Grandview Lodge site in Dunnville. As of today, the proposal has not gone forward and

there's a belief that it is this minister who is holding back the county's plans.

It was the Harris-Eves government that downloaded services to municipalities and forced through the costly restructuring of the region of Haldimand-Norfolk.

This has forced Haldimand county to make this tough decision about their long-term-care needs for the good of the entire county. For this minister to attack the county staff is unacceptable and I

would ask the minister to make a formal apology to the administrator for his comments.

It is the Harris-Eves government who has underfunded long-term care in this province. They tried to sneak through a 15% increase on the copayment paid by

seniors, and it is this minister and the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant who voted against implementing minimum standards of care in long-term care homes. If anyone is to be held responsible for

the reduction in the number of beds in Dunnville, he need only look into a mirror.

With the attitude shown by these members, it is high time that the people of Erie-Lincoln and Haldimand county, indeed the entire province, look for real

leadership and a new direction for the province based on respect, dignity and compassion, especially for our most vulnerable elderly citizens. It is time to elect Dalton McGuinty the next Premier

of the province of Ontario.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): In the west gallery today are adoptees and birth mothers representing the thousands who want Bill 77

passed. I just met with them, and although there were some tears shed, there was also --

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I hate to interrupt; we'll start over. We can't have any demonstrations in the gallery. I know you've come here,

but unfortunately the rules do not even allow you to clap. I would ask that you don't have any demonstrations, even silent ones where you raise your hand like that. You've come a long way and we

like to see you here. But unfortunately, if it continues I will have to ask you to leave, and we don't want to do that.

You can start all over again, member for Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Churley: Thank you, Speaker. I apologize for that.

In the west gallery are the adoptees and birth mothers. I just met with them, and although there were some tears shed, there was also a lot of anger and

renewed resolve, for they've watched the sad spectacle in this House over the last few days of their human rights once again being denied them. They saw Tory member after Tory member get up and say

they support Bill 77, that it's a good bill, but then say no whenever I requested third reading and a vote on the bill. They watched while the government found time for three government private

members' bills to be called and one Liberal bill, which happened last night. But excuse after excuse was given whenever I called for my bill to be voted on.

The government House leader says it's because we broke a deal. There was no deal, and there was time to call the bill. If there was time to call three

government bills and a Liberal bill, there certainly is time to call Bill 77. I would say with all sincerity to the government members, there is still time to do that.

It is time to stop this nonsense. We all know the reason that the government is not calling the bill. It's not about broken deals -- which means nothing to

these people, the kinds of deals and horse-trading that go on here. They need their human rights granted to them. We have the power to do that. What we must do is tell the truth here, that there

are some people in the government caucus who do not support the bill and those few are holding up the democratic rights, the human rights, of those people in the gallery today.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to call for unanimous consent to call Bill 77 for third reading and a final vote.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

CIVICS CLASSES

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): I rise today to recognize and congratulate Mr Stephen Fischer of Northwestern secondary school in Stratford

and Mrs Bev Gregory of St Michael's secondary school in Stratford, as well as the students in the civics classes they teach.

In the civics course, students learn about the evolution of democracies and the different types of political systems. They also study political parties, the

division of powers between federal and provincial governments, our Constitution and our Charter of Rights. International organizations such as the United Nations and global issues such as human

rights are also studied.

Students must also write to an elected official in their community. I have received many letters from students on a variety of issues such as literacy, health

care, the voting age and the driving age. I want to take this opportunity to commend the students at Northwestern and St Michael's for the time they spent writing to me on the provincial issues

that are important to them and for their interest in the political process.

Please join me in applauding the efforts of teachers like Stephen Fischer and Bev Gregory in giving our students a better understanding of our political

system, our political process, and the value of being part of a democracy.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): It's the middle of December and all across Ontario the streets are turning to slush. This is a

normal occurrence in our cold province, but taken to a higher level by Ernie Eves and the Ontario slush tour because yesterday, in one of the most cynical moves I've ever seen, he demonstrated that

he leads a government that, on the one hand, grabs hold of a little billion-dollar slush fund, and then starts doling it out closer to the election, while kids who have had their special-needs

assessment completed wait for the desperate kinds of services they require.

He cynically waited until such time as was the best political opportunity for him. Building on the premise that justice delayed is justice denied, then what do

we take from a government that knowingly disadvantages disabled kids even further by sitting on money and waiting for a politically opportune time to offer that funding, while those kids' needs go

unaddressed?

So, all across Ontario we send the message out to people that when Ernie Eves arrives in your town, toting this new billion-dollar bag of tricks, understand

one thing: if he's addressing important needs in your community related to education and health, understand that he's been sitting on this money. He's been waiting for a politically opportune time

to announce it. While he has done that, people across this province have suffered. That's the kind of cynicism you get from that government and that's why they need to go.

SUPPORT THE SHORTS

Mr R. Gary Stewart (Peterborough): I would like to inform the members of this House about 10 very special people who live and work in my

riding of Peterborough. These folks are employed by Purolator and have been dubbed the couriers with cold legs and warm hearts.

Early in November, the couriers distributed to their customers flyers titled "Support the Shorts," a food drive program with the one and only rule that they

must be wearing shorts in order to collect a donation of a non-perishable food item for the local food banks. The program began November 12, and we all know how many very cold days we have had

since November 12. As of December 6, the couriers have collected over 6,000 pounds of food. The program ends tomorrow, December 13. This is a great testimony to the generosity of the people who

live in my riding and in the province of Ontario.

Purolator has recognized Dave Allen, Mike Lacey, Terry Johnston, Art Langlois, Jason Fraser, Dave Nichols, Jeff Payne, Clark Downey, Doug Shear and Rob Green

with a certificate of appreciation, and we too should congratulate them for initiating this novel idea and freezing their limbs for a great cause.

I would ask the members of this Legislature to applaud the efforts of these 10 men who got into the Christmas spirit, braved the cold, had some fun and

collected tons of food for the less fortunate.

VISITOR

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I want members here to join me in welcoming a good

friend and one of Ontario's best athletes ever, having won seven Grey Cup rings in his history of 20 years in the CFL. Please join me in welcoming my good friend Hank Ilesic.

APOLOGY

Mr Dave Levac (Brant): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday I made a statement in the House that created a stir and had another member

question whether or not I was allowed to do so. Your response prompted me to look into the standing orders. The standing orders, VI, page 18, "Rules of Debate," indicate:

"(

a) Speaks twice to a question, except in explanation of a material part of his or her speech in which he or she may have been misunderstood, in which case

the member may not introduce a new matter.

"(

b) Directs his or her speech to matters other than...."

I refer to

section (h):

"Makes allegations against another member."

By this reading, I believe I was out of order. I want to speak to you, personally, as the Speaker of this place. I apologize. To the House, I apologize, and in

particular to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant, I apologize. I plan to keep the decorum of this House at all times because I came here with that intent. I apologize, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I thank the member for that gesture. I thank the member very much, sincerely. If all the members were like him, I

wouldn't have any problem in here, I can assure you.

MEMBER'S BIRTHDAY

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: we have another colleague in the Legislature whose birthday is

today, and our caucus has chipped in for a little present. It's something I think he would particularly appreciate. It's a plaque. I don't know whether any of the members can guess: who would it

be?

Interjections: Tony Ruprecht.

Mr Phillips: Well, it is. Happy birthday, Tony Ruprecht.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Happy birthday.

Hon Frank Klees (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to allow the member opposite

to present a petition at this time.

The Speaker: I think the member's probably kidding, but I appreciate that, and we wish him happy birthday.

VISITOR

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I'd like to take a minute to introduce Naomi Ives. Naomi's a second-year master of

social work student from Wilfrid Laurier, my old alma mater. My first experience here was to do a field placement, like Naomi, at Queen's Park. She's here today: Naomi Ives.

REPORT, INTEGRITY COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table the report of the Integrity Commissioner, the

Honourable Coulter Osborne, responding to the request of the member for Simcoe North concerning Ms Sandra Pupatello, deputy leader of the official opposition and member for Windsor West.

REQUEST FOR OPINION

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I further beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a request by the member for Don Valley Ea